The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn’t like the Obama‘s? Specifically I was asked: “I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama’s? It seems personal, not policy related. You even dissed (disrespect) their Christmas family picture.”

The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do

not like his policies and legislation. I’ve made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I

responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don’t like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.

I don’t hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America . They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama’s raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.

I don’t like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect, no I demand respect, for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagan’s made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. His arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and constantly bypassing congress is impeachable. Eric Holder is probably the MOST incompetent and arrogant DOJ head to ever hold the job. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?

Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama’s have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus for civility.

I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able to be proud of America. I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world. Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same.

I have a saying, that “the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide.” No president in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and his past sealed.

And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother’s death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father’s military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nausea. He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself

with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today. He opposed rulings that protected women and children that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel . His wife treats being the First Lady as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement – as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.

I don’t like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.

Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin; it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their constantly playing the race card.

I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them, as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people, as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.

As I wrote in a syndicated column titled, “Nero In The White House” – “Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood… Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America ‘s people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.”

By now, we’ve heard the argument about semi-automatic “assault” rifles: nobody needs one. We’ve heard the only reason why someone would obtain this kind of weapon is so they can kill people, which is far from the truth. We’ve also heard the argument from both the Left and the Right that a pistol is how someone protects their home.

“I really don’t know why people need assault weapons. I’m not a hunter but I understand people who want to hunt,” Republican Rep. Peter King said on Morning Joe earlier this week. “I understand people who live in rough neighborhoods or have a small business and want to maintain a pistol to protect themselves as long as they’re properly vetted and licensed. But an assault weapon? “

While the use of pistols in the home are helpful, they’re not the best weapons to use when it comes to protecting property. This is why people need a semi-automatic rifle which yes, can come in the form of an AR-15.

Let’s go back in history for a moment. While everyday life in America compared to the rest of the world is pretty darn easy and relatively safe, the reality is things can change overnight, regardless of whether you live in a decent neighborhood. Take for example the Los Angeles riots in 1992, when business owners were forced to defend their property from angry mobs causing severe chaos: $1 billion in property damage, 50 dead, 4,000 injured, 3,000 fires set and 1,100 buildings damaged. In this case, a handheld pistol was in no way sufficient, but semi-automatic rifles were.

Business owners in LA’s Koreatown knew what was coming their way, so they armed themselves with shotguns and semi-automatic rifles in order to defend their property. They stood on their rooftops as they watched black smoke pour down the street. The cops weren’t there to help them.

“One of our security guards was killed,” Kee Whan Ha told NPR in April 2012, 20 years after the riots took place. “I didn’t see any police patrol car whatsoever. It’s a wide open area. It was like the Wild West in the old days, there was nothing there, we were the only ones left.”

Business owner Richard Rhee felt the same way and told the Los Angeles Times, “Burn this down after 33 years?… They don’t know how hard I’ve worked. This is my market and I’m going to protect it.”

“Assault weapons” saved Koreatown and it’s fair to say the people holding them saved the lives of many that day.

Then of course, there was the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. New Orleans became a place of complete anarchy in a matter of hours. In addition to property owners being forced to stave off mobs of people roaming for food, water and shelter to survive as the government failed to provide emergency services, they had to protect themselves against dangerous looters. But not only were New Orleans residents forced to defend themselves against immediate threats to their person and property, residents also had to protect themselves from the government.

As the water started to recede, leaving New Orleans a chaotic wasteland, police officers began going door to door confiscating weapons. Who did they take them from? Mostly poor black residents in New Orleans’ 9th Ward.

The New York Times reported in September 2005, “No civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns or other firearms.” The paper pointed out that rich residents and business were allowed to hire hundreds of security guards with firearms to protect them. Sadly, the poor in New Orleans didn’t have the same luxury.

Superintendent of police at the time P. Edwin Compass III said, “Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons.”

What happened days before weapons confiscation was tyranny of the worst kind. Henry Glover, a 31-year-old black man was shot and killed by New Orlean’s police officers. They also burned his body.

A New Orleans police officer was laughing after he burned the body of a man who had been gunned down by police in Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath, a fellow officer testified Thursday.

The testimony came during the trial of officer Greg McRae and Lt. Dwayne Scheuermann, who are charged with burning the body of 31-year-old Henry Glover in a car after he was shot and killed by a different officer outside a strip mall on Sept. 2, 2005. Three other current and former officers also are charged in Glover’s death.

A former officer, David Warren, is charged with shooting Glover. Prosecutors say Glover wasn’t armed and didn’t pose a threat to Warren.

Scheuermann and McRae are accused of beating people who drove Glover to a makeshift police headquarters in search of help. The three men were handcuffed when the officers drove off with the car containing Glover’s body.

Former Lt. Robert Italiano and Lt. Travis McCabe are accused of falsifying a report to make it appear Glover’s shooting was justified.

When politicians and gun grabbers tell us we “don’t need” semi-automatic, “assault,” or “military style” weapons, they don’t know what they’re talking about.

Don’t look now, but gas prices are beginning to bite hard again. That’s bad news for President Obama, who, until now, might have thought he had gotten lucky when prices dropped earlier in this critical election year. As the energy issue makes the campaign trail bumpier, Mr. Obama has no one to blame but himself.

The average price of a gallon of gas at the pump has jumped to $3.70, more than 30 cents higher than just six weeks ago. This means the cost has climbed more than halfway back to its high for the year, which was $3.94 in April. Market analysts point the finger at a host of factors for the rapid escalation, including fears of conflict with Iran, summer-driving-season increases, a better-than-expected July jobs report that boosted oil futures and, most recently, a California refinery fire that could reduce West Coast gas supplies by nearly 10 percent. Some gas stations in the Los Angeles area already are selling fuel at $4.50 a gallon.

Underlying the immediate reasons for repeated price spikes over the course of Mr. Obama’s 31/2 years in office are his persistent moves to choke off fossil-fuel production while claiming to do the opposite. The president’s purported “all of the above” energy policy doesn’t apply to bountiful resources below ground. The disparity between White House word and deed shouldn’t go unnoticed.

North America is capable of energy self-sufficiency, a welcome proposition presented by U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) head Adam Sieminski in Aug. 2 testimony before a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee. EIA statistics show U.S. oil production has achieved its highest level since 1998, a fact Team Obama is proud to cite. However, most of the increase is not due to production on federal lands, but on state and private property, which is outside the president’s jurisdiction.

North Dakota’s oil boom is a prime example of American enterprise blossoming where Uncle Sam is not in charge. Tapping into the region’s Bakken formation has allowed the Rough Rider State to jump from the No. 8 to the No. 2 oil-producing state, according to Lynn Helms, North Dakota’s mineral resources director. Much of the new oil is being pumped from private ranches and farms.

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama continues to promote his “We Can’t Wait Initiative” for “green” development while ignoring the solid economic opportunities fossil fuels present. On Aug. 7, the White House announced it would expedite seven new solar and wind projects in four western states. In contrast, permits for drilling on federal land remain hard to come by since Mr. Obama curtailed drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and across the nation following the 2010 BP spill.

It’s not bad luck that has caused gas prices to soar from $1.95 when Mr. Obama took office but the result of deliberate efforts by his left-wing administration to drive up pump costs to make greenie energy sources appear affordable by comparison. Americans are feeling the drag on their bottom line as the Bloomberg Consumer Comfort Index fell last week to a two-month low. “We can’t wait” is what many voters think about a change of national leadership on Election Day.

The bill authorizes the state to begin selling $4.5 billion in voter-approved bonds that includes $2.6 billion to build an initial 130-mile stretch of the high-speed rail line in the Central Valley. That will allow the state to collect another $3.2 billion in federal funding that could have been rescinded if lawmakers failed to act Friday.

“The Legislature took bold action today that gets Californians back to work and puts California out in front once again,” Brown said in a statement. He later celebrated with Senate President Pro TemDarrell Steinberg of Sacramento, a fellow Democrat.

Brown pushed for the massive infrastructure project to accommodate expected population growth in the nation’s most populous state, which now has 37 million people. He said the project is sorely needed to create jobs in a region with higher-than-average unemployment.

What kind of idiots are running the show in Washington and Sacramento?

Oh wait, they are Democrats.

If California wants to put more of their citizens back to work, here is a suggestion. Cut taxes. Cut your insane regulations that have anyone with the capacity to start a business or run one and the ability to leave California doing so.

So California is going to spend more money that it does not have. The taxpayers are going to be on the hook for the cost.

Here’s a thought for California. If this high-speed rail was really good idea, the private sector would have done it a long time ago.

Meanwhile will the last Californian with a job leaving for another state, please turn out the lights.

Obama seeks consolation for Midwest beat-down with Left Coast pay-up

Wouldn’t it be awful if an important election hinged on some fat cats outspending the opposition? That was the liberals’ excuse for the failure of Democratic Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett to unseat Republican WisconsinGov. Scott Walker in Tuesday’s recall election.

The Washington Post’s Dan Eggen used figures from the “nonpartisan” Wisconsin Democracy Campaign to report that Mr. Walker raised $30.5 million to Mr. Barrett’s measly $3.9 million. Wow, what a spread. Too bad it’s not the whole picture, as Ben Shapiro pointed out at Breitbart.com: “As it turns out, labor unions spent an additional $21 million on the recall election.”

Instead of 7-1 or 10-1, the “spending gap” was closer to $30 million-$25 million. Also, in a recall election of several GOP Wisconsin senators in September, “Democrats outspent Republicans $23.4 million to $20.5 million.”

White House press secretary Jay Carney, who has arguably the toughest job in Washington, gamely addressed the Wisconsin debacle, saying, “I certainly wouldn’t read much into yesterday’s result beyond its effect on who’s occupying the governor’s seat in Wisconsin.” Mad magazine’s Alfred E. “What, me worry?” Neuman could not have put it better.

When a controversial Republican governor handily prevails despite a massive union campaign in a historically progressive state, why should a Democratic president in a failing economy get nervous? Also on Tuesday, California voters in San Jose and San Diego, not exactly bastions of conservatism, approved measures curbing public-employee union power. Uh-oh.

Not to worry, though. Mr. Obama still has the national media. Like an army of programmed zombies, they obediently lurched forward with the “big spending” theme in Wisconsin. CBS, NBC, ABC and MSNBC all harped on the fact that Mr. Walker’s campaign and PACs supporting it raised far more than Mr. Barrett’s supporters, the Media Research Center reported.

I don’t recall similar alarm when they reported on President Obama’s reputed goal of a $1 billion national war chest for November. But the GOP’s fundraising success in Wisconsin sure cheesed them off.

On election eve, Peter Alexander said on Monday’s “NBC Nightly News” that the state had “been flooded with a record $64 million in campaign spending.” He declared: “Many voters have had enough.”

They sure have. Mr. Walker won with 205,509 more votes than he got when beating Mr. Barrett back in 2010. Thirty-eight percent of union households voted for Mr. Walker, an increase of one point from 2010. Apparently, balancing the budget, reducing taxes and preventing state employee layoffs is enough dirty pool to ensure survival of a recall.

Sensing a train wreck, Mr. Obama skipped Wisconsin, leaving Mr. Barrett to twist in the Badger State winds. Mr. Obama at least flew near the state on the way to fundraisers in Minnesota before a two-day swing through San Francisco and Los Angeles, where dollars gaily flowed into his coffers like Napa Valley wine.

Following Vice President Joseph R. Biden’s lead and pretending two men are a real marriage plus refusing to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act sure opens the wallets in La-La Land. A $25,000-a-plate dinner at the Los Angeles home of “Glee” creator Ryan Murphy after an LGBT Leadership Council gala at $1,250 a ticket, plus a $35,800-per-plate luncheon and other events earlier in San Francisco helped raise at least $5.3 million.

Meanwhile, back in Wisconsin, where the GOP also retained Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch and three Senate seats, Democrats clung to the hope that a tightly contested recall of a fourth Republican state senator may swing that chamber back to Democratic control. If so, perhaps they won’t flee the state the next time a difficult vote comes up.

Democrats also took heart in exit polls that had Mr. Obama beating Mitt Romney by seven points, half the margin by which Mr. Obama beat John McCain in 2008. Like Mr. Obama, Mr. Romney skipped the Wisconsin contest.

Public-employee unions are trying to pick up the pieces, but Tuesday’s vote had to be sobering. It’s one thing for Mr. Walker and a GOP-led legislature to curb their power; it’s another for 54 percent of the electorate to say they agree.

Lots of lessons can be learned, not the least of which is that the recall system worked. Ideally, recall elections are a tool to remove corrupt or out-of-control politicians. They are not supposed to be partisan means to punish elected officials for policy differences. We have regular elections for that. Conversely, a failed recall can demonstrate public support for an incumbent’s policies and smear huge amounts of egg on certain deserving faces. For more information on all things recall, see recalltherogues.org.

According to exit polls, 6 in 10 Wisconsin voters said recall should be used only to punish “official misconduct.” Mr. Walker may be hated by the unions, but he’s not a crook, and voters acted accordingly.

Harsher elements of the political left vow revenge, of course. Mr. Walker is receiving death threats and other vitriolic tweets, as reported by The Washington Times’ 24/7 blog. Occupy Milwaukee was out in full force Thursday, calling police “pigs” and brandishing signs saying “Public jobs program now!” and “Stop the war on women.”

It’s doubtful any of this will intimidate a guy who didn’t blink when his opponents threw the kitchen sink at him.

Speaking of the unions, even if he thought the recall was a loser, Mr. Obama might at least have gone through the motions for a major Democratic constituency. Perhaps it’s more fun hanging around with celebrities.

In New York on Monday, after Mr. Obama’s Broadway fundraisers with Bill Clinton, the hapless Mr. Carney was asked if “glitzy” celebrity events might hurt Mr. Obama’s populist message. He responded that Mr. Obama has “vast numbers of small donors. … And I think that the fact that the president enjoys that kind of support speaks to what his policy priorities are. He’s out there fighting for the middle class.”

Unless you’re a middle-class union member in Wisconsin, that is.

Robert Knight is senior fellow for the American Civil Rights Union and a columnist for The Washington Times.

Over the past three years, the Obama EPA has conducted a scorched earth campaign against fossil fuel producers and users, especially the coal-fired power industry, with multibillion-dollar rules that provide no meaningful environmental or public-health benefits, like the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and the Mercury Air Toxics Standard (MATS).

The EPA will soon propose its greenhouse gas emission standards for power plants – rules that will attempt to make it financially impossible to construct new coal-fired power plants in the United States.

It seems that President Obama was deadly serious when he told the San Francisco Chronicle in January 2008, “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

And while nothing short of a change of administration will change the fate of coal-fired power in the United States, Senate Republicans should use the March 2 Senate hearing as an opportunity to put Ms. Jackson on the hot seat.

To stoke their blood pressure, Republican committee members should remember that Ms. Jackson has delivered numerous speeches and written newspaper Op-Eds over the past year denouncing Republicans as trying to sicken and kill hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Last October, for example, Ms. Jackson wrote in the Los Angeles Times, “Since the beginning of this year, Republicans in the House have averaged roughly a vote every day the chamber has been in session to undermine the EPA and our nation’s environmental laws. … How we respond to this assault on our environmental and public health protections will mean the difference between sickness and health – in some cases, life and death – for hundreds of thousands of citizens.”

GOP committee members will first need to inoculate themselves against Ms. Jackson’s charms. They may like her personally, but her agency’s junk science-fueled regulatory war against American jobs, families, businesses and the economy as a whole ought to transcend any warm and cuddly feelings. There is nothing to be gained from the one-way respect and collegiality that allows her to lie, temporize and filibuster her way out of answering tough questions.

Next, GOP committee members need to internalize the reality that American air is already clean and safe, and was so before the Frankenstein that is the Obama EPA came to life. There is no one being harmed by ambient air quality in America and the EPA cannot produce anyone that has been harmed.

JunkScience.com, for example, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act emergency hospital admissions data for 2010-11 from the large Department of Veterans Affairs hospital in West Los Angeles. The data show no correlation between hospital admissions for asthma and air quality measurements for ground-level ozone (smog) and fine particulate matter (soot) in Los Angeles, which supposedly has some of the “worst” air quality in America.

Finally, committee members need to be aware of the massive scientific conflict-of-interest going on in the EPA air office. The EPA not only commissions research that fits its agenda, it then pays the reviewers who rubber-stamp the quality of that research. The EPA also allows its researchers to deny outside scientists access to key data that would allow confirmation of claimed results.

The dubiousness of this process and EPA air quality science in general is best exposed and debunked by a recent study published in the U.S. government journal Environmental Health Perspectives. That study shockingly reported that air quality in the Chinese city of Xi’an, one of the dirtiest cities in the world, is safer than the air in U.S. cities. Either air pollution is not as harmful as the EPA asserts or the agency’s self-funded multitude of statistical analyses on air quality are suspect – or both.

No doubt Ms. Jackson will try to deflect questions about the probity of EPA science by saying that scores of “independent” researchers can’t possibly be wrong, or worse, part of a conspiracy. But bought-and-paid-for statistics based on secret data really ought to raise a Republican eyebrow.

At a recent House hearing on the EPA MATS rule, Rep. Joe Barton, Texas Republican, successfully interrogated EPA air chief Lisa McCarthy into stunned silence about the absence of health effects from power plant mercury emissions – a dramatic first. Coach Inhofe should get the video for his team.

Steve Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and is the author of “Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them” (Regnery, 2009).

Endgame of multiculturalism looms: Hispanic reacquisition of the Southwest

American students now pledge allegiance to Mexico. They sing its national anthem. And it is sanctioned by the state of Texas. Sound absurd? It is. Last month in a Spanish class at Achieve Early College High School in McAllen, Texas, students recited the Mexican pledge of allegiance and were instructed to memorize the Mexican anthem. Moreover, they had to wear red, white and green – the colors of the Mexican flag – as they fulfilled their class assignment. Public high schools no longer promote American patriotism, but they are doing a superb job of cultivating loyalty to Mexico.

Sophomore Brenda Brinsdon refused to participate. “I just thought it was out of hand; I didn’t think it was right,” she told the Blaze, which first reported the story. “Reciting pledges to Mexico and being loyal to it has nothing to do with learning Spanish.”

She’s right. When she complained, however, to the school’s principal, Yvette Cavazo, Miss Brinsdon was told it was part of the curriculum. According to Texas’ state education standards, students must acquire “knowledge” of foreign cultures and use language to enhance their “understanding.”

“The students came away with a better understanding of the culture, heritage and customs of a neighboring country where Spanish is the primary language,” school district spokesman Mark May said.

This is treasonous; American students are being indoctrinated to revere and pledge their loyalty to a foreign government. Such is the logical consequence of multiculturalism and modern liberalism.

For decades, spending on public education has soared. America spends more per capita than almost any other country in the West. The results: On international test scores, U.S. students continually lag behind their European and Asian counterparts, especially on math and science. Many students who graduate from high school are barely literate. They know next to nothing about the Constitution, American history or basic civics. U.S. public schools are not properly teaching writing and reading in English. Why do schools promote the learning of Spanish and a foreign culture when many U.S. students are deficient in understanding their own language and civilization? Santa Anna trumps George Washington.

Decades ago, students learning Spanish would recite the pledge of allegiance to America or sing “The Star-Spangled Banner” in that foreign language. No more. Our education establishment thinks displays of patriotism are signs of “nativism” and “xenophobia.” Textbooks regularly teach that America is a nation founded upon racism, sexism, imperialism and genocide. Therefore, students must be taught to appreciate – and respect – foreign peoples and Third World cultures. This is a form of national self-hatred and self-abnegation.

Moreover, this is part of the Hispanicization of America. Since 1990, nearly 20 million illegal aliens have crossed our porous southern border. If one adds legal immigration, the foreign-born population is nearly 40 million. America essentially has imported an entire subculture the size of a major European nation. This is the most dramatic cultural transformation in one generation in history. Our political class is engaged in a dangerous social experiment – one that threatens to destroy our country.

The cultural effects have been felt almost everywhere, especially in Texas, the Southwest and California. English is dying. Spanish is rampant. Hispanic communities are surging. Along with their unprecedented numbers, they are bringing their distinct culture, language, customs, heritage and powerful loyalties. In an America that no longer emphasizes assimilation, many remain unassimilated. Ethnic separatism and linguistic chauvinism are on the rise. For millions of illegal and legal immigrants, Mexico is – and always will be – their true homeland. America is slowly being Balkanized.

“Mexifornia” is a case in point. California once was the symbol of the American dream. Today, it is sinking into a Third World abyss. Among large parts of Los Angeles, English can no longer be heard. Some neighborhoods are no-go areas. They are occupied by Mexican gangs and drug cartels. In the Golden State’s public schools, from kindergarten through the third grade, almost 2 out of 5 students have English as their second language. In the Central Valley, the state’s agricultural region, one can go for hundreds of miles and hear only one language: Spanish.

Our political establishment – both liberal Democrats and pro-business Republicans – do not want to confront this unpleasant truth: Mexico is slowly reannexing the U.S. Southwest. This is occurring culturally and linguistically. Eventually, it will happen territorially.

In fact, the Mexican government has been open about its expansionist aims. Its consulates in America have a mandate to provide Mexican textbooks in communities with large Hispanic populations. The Mexican consulate in Los Angeles has distributed hundreds of thousands of such textbooks to more than 1,000 schools in the Los Angeles area alone. Those textbooks teach that the Southwest, California and Texas belong to Mexico; that they were stolen in the 1848 Mexican-American War; and that Hispanic children owe allegiance to the Mexican flag and the Mexican state. In Mexico City and among radical Hispanic activists in America, the strategy is called “La Reconquista” – the reconquest of ancient lands. In 2004, then-President Vicente Fox said in Chicago that Americans of Mexican descent are part of a “nation” that transcends frontiers. He was calling for the creation of a Greater Mexico.

Yet Americans remain strangely silent. We are witnessing the emergence of a multicultural, multiethnic and multilingual Tower of Babel. Unless it is demolished, it will tear America apart. Today, Texas students are being told to pledge allegiance to Mexico and sing its anthem. Tomorrow, they may be told that the U.S. flag and the Constitution of our Founding Fathers represent a foreign regime occupying foreign soil.

Welcome to the United States of Mexico.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute.

“I’m not afraid of anybody. … And as far as I’m concerned, the tea party can go straight to hell.” — Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif.

Waters’ list of insults, vulgarities and blame-whitey scapegoating easily makes her the Al Sharpton of Congress.

Let’s go to the videotape:

Waters once said of the then-sitting president: “I would like to … say … very clearly that I believe George (H.W.) Bush is a racist.” She routinely refers to the Republican Party as “the enemy.” She also referred to Republican former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan as a “plantation owner.”

She called the 1992 Los Angeles riots a “rebellion,” and bellowed, “No justice, no peace!” She defended looters: “There were mothers who took this as an opportunity to take some milk, to take some bread, to take some shoes. Maybe they shouldn’t have done it, but the atmosphere was such that they did it. They are not crooks.” Waters said: “One lady said her children didn’t have any shoes. She just saw those shoes there, a chance for all of her children to have new shoes. Goddamn it! It was such a tear-jerker. I might have gone in and taken them for her myself.”

In 1973, the former Black Panther Joanne Chesimard shot and killed a New Jersey state trooper. Found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in prison, Chesimard escaped from a New Jersey penitentiary and fled to Cuba. Congress passed a resolution urging Castro to extradite her to this country. But Waters wrote Castro a letter, urging him to keep the “persecuted … political activist” and likened the cop killer to Martin Luther King, since Chesimard had been “persecuted for her civil rights work”!

Waters wrote a foreword for a book, “Dark Alliance,” that accused the CIA of playing a prominent role in the Los Angeles area drug trade. Never mind that practically every major newspaper — The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and The Washington Post — all examined and rejected the charge. She even pressured former CIA director John Deutch into coming to Los Angeles to explain the CIA’s alleged role. During a town hall meeting, Waters bellowed, “If I never do anything else in this career as a member of Congress, I am going to make somebody pay for what they have done to my community and to my people!”

Waters’ concern for the drug epidemic affecting “my people” apparently begins and ends with town hall meetings. In the ’90s, a joint federal and local Houston DEA task force pursued cocaine-dealing allegations of James Prince, a childhood friend of Maxine Waters’ husband. Waters wrote a letter to then-Attorney General Janet Reno calling the investigation racially motivated, and demanded an end to the probe. She succeeded. This infuriated local DEA agents, one of whom later publicly stated: “The Justice Department in Washington turned their backs on a good agent and a good investigation. It appears the object was to get them to stop their investigation, and it appears that worked.”

Waters rarely sees a white officer/black suspect encounter she cannot turn into a racial episode. In the Los Angeles suburb of Inglewood, a white police officer slammed a black youth on his car and later punched the youth because, according to the officer, the teen grabbed the officer’s genitals.

Why, shades of Rodney King, according to Waters, who said: “I don’t see white police officers slamming the heads of little white boys into police cars. I haven’t seen them abusing white males. What I see is white police officers abusing black males, and young black males particularly. Yes, I believe it’s racially motivated.” Note: Inglewood, a town of over 100,000 people, consists of nearly all black and Hispanic residents. This automatically makes any white officer involved in a scuffle with practically any Inglewood suspect a target of accusations of racial discrimination and police brutality.

The congresswoman can dish it out, but what happens when people fight back? When an anonymous letter claimed that the Los Angeles Police Commission president, at a meeting, called her a “bitch,” Waters went ballistic. She unsuccessfully demanded his resignation: “If it is all right for the Police Commission president to call a congresswoman a bitch, is it all right for police officers on the street to call women bitches?”

Waters currently faces an investigation by the House ethics committee. She phoned then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson in 2008, asking his office to meet with minority bank owners. He complied. But most of the bankers in attendance were from OneUnited Bank — a bank in which Waters’ husband owned shares and on whose board he once served. OneUnited asked for a special bailout, and three months later, it received $12 million. The basis of the House ethics inquiry is why Waters failed to disclose to Paulson her personal financial interest in the bank bailout.

Waters’ tea party attack once again exposes her as one of the most racist, hateful and vulgar members of Congress — prompting Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum to call her “vile.” He was far too kind.

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 7,638 other followers

Advertisements

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.
I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.